This study investigates the effects of different positions of side-mounted rear-view cameras on distance estimation of drivers.
Background
Camera-monitor systems bring advantages as compared to conventional rear-view mirrors, such as improved aerodynamics and enlarged field-of-view. Applied research has mainly focused on the comparison between cameras and mirrors or on positioning of in-vehicle monitors. However, the positioning of the exterior camera awaits investigation given that the perspective of the observer at does affect depth perception at large.
Method
In two experiments, a total of 50 students estimated metric distances to static vehicles presented in realistic or 3D-rendered pictures. The pictures depicted the rearward scene of a car following the driver as viewed through a camera at varying vertical and horizontal positions. The following vehicle’s size and environmental information varied among conditions and experiments.
Results
Lower camera positions led to distance overestimation and higher positions to underestimation. The effect increased as the distance to the following vehicle decreased. Moreover, larger vehicles led to stronger distance underestimation, especially in low camera positions. Interestingly, the main effect of camera position disappeared when the ego-vehicles’ back was visible.
Conclusion
Different rearward viewpoints affect distance estimation of drivers, especially in close distances. However, a visible reference of one’s own vehicle seems to mostly compensate this effect.
Application
In general, the rear-view camera should be mounted rather higher and to the front of the vehicle. Also, the vehicle’s back should always be visible. Low camera positions are not recommended.
BaguleyT. (2012). Calculating and graphing within-subject confidence intervals for ANOVA. Behavior Research Methods, 44, 158–175.doi:10.3758/s13428-011-0123-7
4.
BarfieldW.HendrixC.BjornesethO. (1995). Spatial performance with perspective displays as a function of computer graphics eyepoint elevation and geometric field of view. Applied Ergonomics, 26, 307–314.doi:10.1016/0003-6870(95)00034-8
5.
BaurèsR.OberfeldD.TournierI.HechtH.CavalloV. (2014). Arrival-time judgments on multiple-lane streets: The failure to ignore irrelevant traffic. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 65, 72–84.doi:10.1016/j.aap.2013.12.013
6.
BeckD.LeeM.ParkW. (2017). A comparative evaluation of in-vehicle side view displays layouts in critical lane changing situation. Ergonomics, 60, 1682–1691.doi:10.1080/00140139.2017.1343958
7.
BertaminiM.YangT. L.ProffittD. R. (1998). Relative size perception at a distance is best at eye level. Perception & Psychophysics, 60, 673–682.doi:10.3758/BF03206054
8.
BöffelC.MüsselerJ. (2015). Adjust your view! Wing-mirror settings influence distance estimations and lane-change decisions. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 35, 112–118.doi:10.1016/j.trf.2015.10.009
9.
CairdJ. K.HancockP. A. (1994). The perception of arrival time for different oncoming vehicles at an intersection. Ecological Psychology, 6, 83–109.doi:10.1207/s15326969eco0602_1
CorujeiraJ. G. P.OakleyI. (2013). Stereoscopic egocentric distance perception: The impact of eye height and display devices. InHoyetL.SandersB. W.GeigelJ.StefanucciJ. (Eds.), Proceedings of the ACM symposium on applied perception (pp.23–30). ACM.
12.
CousineauD. (2005). Confidence intervals in within-subject designs: A simpler solution to Loftus and Masson’s method. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 1, 42–45.doi:10.20982/tqmp.01.1.p042
13.
CuttingJ. E.VishtonP. M. (1995). Perceiving layout and knowing distances: The integration, relative potency, and contextual use of different information about depth. InEpsteinW.RogersS. (Eds.), Perception of space and motion (pp.69–117). Academic Press.
14.
DaumS. O.HechtH. (2009). Distance estimation in vista space. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 71, 1127–1137.doi:10.3758/APP.71.5.1127
15.
DeLuciaP. R. (1991). Pictorial and motion-based information for depth perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 17, 738–748.doi:10.1037/0096-1523.17.3.738
16.
DeLuciaP. R. (2013). Effects of size on collision perception and implications for perceptual theory and transportation safety. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22, 199–204.doi:10.1177/0963721412471679
17.
EpsteinW.ParkJ.CaseyA. (1961). The current status of the size-distance hypotheses. Psychological Bulletin, 58, 491–514.doi:10.1037/h0042260
18.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.LangA.-G.BuchnerA. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191.doi:10.3758/BF03193146
19.
FisherJ. A.GalerI. A. (1984). The effects of decreasing the radius of curvature of convex external rear view mirrors upon drivers’ judgements of vehicles approaching in the rearward visual field. Ergonomics, 27, 1209–1224.doi:10.1080/00140138408963603
20.
FlannaganM. J.MeffordM. L. (2005). Distance perception with a camera-based rear vision system in actual driving [Symposium]. Proceedings of the Third International Driving Symposium on Human Factors in Driver Assessment, Training and Vehicle Design, Rockport, ME, United States, (pp. 58–65).
GardnerP. L.Mon-WilliamsM. (2001). Vertical gaze angle: Absolute height-in-scene information for the programming of prehension. Experimental Brain Research, 136, 379–385.doi:10.1007/s002210000590
23.
GeussM. N.StefanucciJ. K.Creem-RegehrS. H.ThompsonW. B. (2012). Effect of viewing plane on perceived distances in real and virtual environments. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 38, 1242–1253.doi:10.1037/a0027524
24.
GogelW. C. (1976). An indirect method of measuring perceived distance from familiar size. Perception & Psychophysics, 20, 419–429.doi:10.3758/BF03208276
25.
GogelW. C.Da SilvaJ. A. (1987). Familiar size and the theory of off-sized perceptions. Perception & Psychophysics, 41, 318–328.doi:10.3758/BF03208233
26.
GrechkinT. Y.NguyenT. D.PlumertJ. M.CremerJ. F.KearneyJ. K. (2010). How does presentation method and measurement protocol affect distance estimation in real and virtual environments?ACM Transactions on Applied Perception, 7, 1–18.doi:10.1145/1823738.1823744
27.
HahnelU. J. J.HechtH. (2012). The impact of rear-view mirror distance and curvature on judgements relevant to road safety. Ergonomics, 55, 23–36.doi:10.1080/00140139.2011.638402
HendrixC.BarfieldW. (1997). Spatial discrimination in three-dimensional displays as a function of computer graphics eyepoint elevation and stereoscopic viewing. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 39, 602–617.doi:10.1518/001872097778667915
30.
HigashiyamaA.ShimonoK. (2004). Mirror vision: Perceived size and perceived distance of virtual images. Perception & Psychophysics, 66, 679–691.doi:10.3758/BF03194911
31.
HuynhH.FeldtL. S. (1976). Estimation of the box correction for degrees of freedom from sample data in randomized block and split-plot designs. Journal of Educational Statistics, 1, 69–82.doi:10.3102/10769986001001069
32.
KlineP. B.WitmerB. G. (1996). Distance perception in virtual environments: Effects of field of view and surface texture at near distances. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 40, 1112–1116.doi:10.1177/154193129604002201
33.
KornbrotD. E.MsetfiR. M.GrimwoodM. J. (2013). Time perception and depressive realism: Judgment type, psychophysical functions and bias. PLoS ONE, 8, e71585.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0071585
34.
LandwehrK.BaurèsR.OberfeldD.HechtH. (2013). Visual discrimination thresholds for time to arrival. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 75, 1465–1472.doi:10.3758/s13414-013-0497-y
35.
LargeD. R.CrundallE.BurnettG.HarveyC.KonstantopoulosP. (2016). Driving without wings: The effect of different digital mirror locations on the visual behaviour, performance and opinions of drivers. Applied Ergonomics, 55, 138–148.doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2016.02.003
36.
LeyrerM.LinkenaugerS. A.BülthoffH. H.KloosU.MohlerB. (2011). The influence of eye height and avatars on egocentric distance estimates in immersive virtual environments [Symposium]. Proceedings of the ACM SIGGRAPH Symposium on Applied Perception in Graphics and Visualization, Toulouse, France, (pp. 67–74).
37.
LeyrerM.LinkenaugerS. A.BülthoffH. H.MohlerB. J. (2015). Eye height manipulations: A possible solution to reduce underestimation of egocentric distances in head-mounted displays. ACM Transactions on Applied Perception, 12, 1–23.
38.
LiZ.DurginF. H. (2012). A comparison of two theories of perceived distance on the ground plane: The angular expansion hypothesis and the intrinsic bias hypothesis. i-Perception, 3, 368–383.doi:10.1068/i0505
39.
LiZ.PhillipsJ.DurginF. H. (2011). The underestimation of egocentric distance: Evidence from frontal matching tasks. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 73, 2205–2217.doi:10.3758/s13414-011-0170-2
40.
LoomisJ. M.Da SilvaJ. A.FujitaN.FukusimaS. S. (1992). Visual space perception and visually directed action. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18, 906–921.doi:10.1037//0096-1523.18.4.906
41.
LoomisJ. M.KnappJ. M. (2003). Visual perception of egocentric distance in real and virtual environments. InHettingerL. J.HaasM. (Eds.), Virtual and adaptive environments: Applications, implications, and human performance issues (pp.21–46). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
42.
McCreadyD. (1985). On size, distance, and visual angle perception. Perception & Psychophysics, 37, 323–334.doi:10.3758/BF03211355
43.
MessingR.DurginF. H. (2005). Distance perception and the visual horizon in head-mounted displays. ACM Transactions on Applied Perception, 2, 234–250.doi:10.1145/1077399.1077403
44.
MoreyR. D. (2008). Confidence intervals from normalized data: A correction to Cousineau (2005). Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 4, 61–64.doi:10.20982/tqmp.04.2.p061
45.
MurataA.KohnoY. (2018). Effectiveness of replacement of automotive side mirrors by in-vehicle LCD–effect of location and size of LCD on safety and efficiency. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 66, 177–186.doi:10.1016/j.ergon.2018.03.010
46.
OberfeldD.FrankeT. (2013). Evaluating the robustness of repeated measures analyses: The case of small sample sizes and nonnormal data. Behavior Research Methods, 45, 792–812.doi:10.3758/s13428-012-0281-2
47.
OoiT. L.WuB.HeZ. J. (2001). Distance determined by the angular declination below the horizon. Nature, 414, 197–200.doi:10.1038/35102562
48.
PaneraiF.DroulezJ.KeladaJ.-M.KemenyA.BalligandE.FavreE. (2001, September). Speed and safety distance control in truck driving: Comparison of simulation and real-world environment [Paper presentation]. 2001 DSC Driving Simulation Conference, Nice, France. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8963/58786bc3d5e33b1a29aef410bb9daef00627.pdf
RandK. M.TarampiM. R.Creem-RegehrS. H.ThompsonW. B. (2011). The importance of a visual horizon for distance judgments under severely degraded vision. Perception, 40, 143–154.doi:10.1068/p6843
51.
Rudin-BrownC. M. (2004). Vehicle height affects drivers’ speed perception. Implications for rollover risk. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1899, 84–89.doi:10.3141/1899-11
52.
SchmidtE. A.HoffmannH.KrautscheidR.BierbachM.FreyA.GailJ.Lotz-KeensL. (2016). Camera-monitor system as a replacement for exterior mirrors in cars and trucks. InTerzisA. (Ed.), Handbook of camera monitoring systems. The automotive mirror-replacement technology based on ISO 16505 (pp.369–436). Springer International Publishing.
53.
SedgwickH. A. (1986). Space perception. InBoffK. R.KaufmanL.ThomasJ. P. (Eds.), Handbook of perception and human performance: Vol 1. sensory processes and perception (pp.21.1–21.57). Wiley.
54.
SinaiM. J.OoiT. L.HeZ. J. (1998). Terrain influences the accurate judgement of distance. Nature, 395, 497–500.doi:10.1038/26747
55.
TerzisA.. (Ed.). (2016). Handbook of camera monitoring systems. The automotive mirror-replacement technology based on ISO 16505. Springer International Publishing.
56.
van ErpJ. B. F.PadmosP. (2003). Image parameters for driving with indirect viewing systems. Ergonomics, 46, 1471–1499.doi:10.1080/0014013032000121624
WillemsenP.GoochA. A. (2002). Perceived egocentric distance in real, image-based, and traditional virtual reality environments. Proceedings of the IEEE Virtual Reality, 2002, 275–276.
59.
WragaM.ProffittD. R. (2000). Mapping the zone of eye-height utility for seated and standing observers. Perception, 29, 1361–1383.doi:10.1068/p2837
60.
YanJ.-J.LorvB.LiH.SunH.-J. (2011). Visual processing of the impending collision of a looming object: Time to collision revisited. Journal of Vision, 11, 7–25.doi:10.1167/11.12.7
61.
YannisG.PapadimitriouE.TheofilatosA. (2013). Pedestrian gap acceptance for mid-block street crossing. Transportation Planning and Technology, 36, 450–462.doi:10.1080/03081060.2013.818274
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
